Florida Casino and Sports Betting Future Faces a New Obstacle

Article by : Erik Gibbs Dec 28, 2023

• 
• 

The ultimate decision in the sports betting case before the Florida Supreme Court may hinge on the interpretation of the crucial phrase “typically found in casinos.” The recent response brief from West Flagler in the state court case predominantly revolves around Amendment 3 and its use of the term “typically found in casinos.”

This amendment, enacted in 2018, mandates that any expansion of gaming beyond tribal lands is subject to referendum and voter intervention.

West Flagler’s perspective on the case emphasizes that, during the discussions leading up to the amendment’s approval, sports betting was a prominent and popular topic among legislators and government bodies around the country.

Advocates and opponents of Amendment 3 alike considered it applicable to sports betting, a point underscored during oral arguments on the precise ballot language.

In response, the state contends that sports betting does not align with the definition of gambling “typically found in casinos” for various reasons.

One key argument is that, in 2018, sports betting was not commonly associated with casinos outside of Nevada. West Flagler challenges the notion that the amendment’s wording should be limited to what constituted gambling at the time.

According to the argument, the language intended to encompass everything related to betting, including sports betting. West Flagler revisited the compact, asserting that the state’s justification for including online sports betting in the deal relies on circular logic.

The response highlighted a perceived dilemma for respondents, contending that expanding casino gambling under state law necessitates authorization through an Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) compact.

However, the DC Circuit’s decision seemingly renders authorization of off-tribal land gaming impossible under IGRA. The DC Circuit Court specified that the federally-approved compact should only encompass gaming on tribal lands.

West Flagler contended that any agreements about the expansion of gambling, including the incorporation of online sports betting, should undergo scrutiny not only by the legislature but also necessitate approval from the voters.

The response pointed to the timing of the petition to the state court, refuting the state’s claim that the delay in action by West Flagler made the request untimely. West Flagler emphasized that it filed the request seven days after the final decision.

The next procedural step involves the Florida Supreme Court’s response. Legal expert Daniel Wallach outlined four potential actions for the court: granting the quo warranto request, denying it, requesting oral arguments, or transferring the case to the circuit courts.